93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-08573
Y93
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 92-11 372 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 30 percent for
post-traumati
(PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
R. E. Coppola, Associate Counse
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to August 1969.
This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a
of December 1990 from the
San Francisco, California, Regional Office (RO). The notice of
disagreement was
1991. The statement of the case was issued in May 1991. The
substantive appeal
June 1991. A personal hearing on appeal was held at the RO in July
1991. The h
issued a decision in this matter in July 1991. A supplemental
statement of the
January 1992. The appeal was received and docketed at the Board in
July 1992.
been represented during this appeal by Disabled American Veterans.
That organiz
additional written argument to the Board in October 1992.
The veteran's representative, in October 1992, advanced a claim of
clear and unm
the grant of service connection for residuals of shell fragment
wounds. Specifi
that service connection shall be establish for "penetrating
gunshot-shell fragme
buttock" and that a compensable evaluation for disability of muscle
Group XVII w
This issue has not been addressed by the RO and is not shown to be
intertwined w
issue on appeal. It is referred to the RO for appropriate action.
REMAND
By the December 1990 rating determination, the RO granted service
connection for
RO assigned a 30 percent disability evaluation, effective from
September 28, 199
By a January 1992 rating determination, the RO confirmed and continued
the 30 pe
evaluation but granted an effective date for that award from January
11, 1990.
A review of the evidence indicates that the veteran has a long history
of alcoho
1991 personal hearing on appeal, the veteran related his substance
abuse to his
Vietnam and his service-connected PTSD.
A review of the record also establishes that the veteran has received
treatment
and that the veteran's complaints of depression have been attributed
to alcohol.
It is apparent that in evaluating the veteran's post-traumatic stress
disorder,
given to disability resulting from alcohol abuse. The complete VA
records refle
alcohol abuse, dating back to September 1973, have not been obtained.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a duty to assist the
veteran in the
claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a)
(1992). The Un
Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the duty to assist
requires that
ancillary benefits to which the appellant may be entitled, even if not
specifica
the appellant; so-called "inferred claims." The Court has held that
the existen
raised by the appellant should be liberally construed. The Court has
also held
a secondary service-connection issue, reasonably raised from a liberal
reading o
appeal, must also be addressed. The Court has held that when a claim
is placed
appellant, and that issue is "inextricably intertwined" with the issue
certified
considered simultaneously. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180, 183
(1991).
A liberal construction of the record necessitates the recognition of
the followi
Entitlement to service connection for alcoholism as secondary to
service-connect
Understandably, since this issue has not been specifically recognized
heretofore
adequately developed. Under the circumstances of this case, we are of
the opini
assistance is required.
Based upon the foregoing, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following acti
1. The veteran should be given the opportunity to submit any
additional evidence in support of his claim for an evaluation in
excess
of 30 percent for PTSD. The veteran should also be given the
opportunity to submit evidence in support of his claim for service
connection for alcoholism as secondary to PTSD. At the veteran's
request, the RO should assist the veteran in obtaining such evidence,
clinical or otherwise. Any evidence obtained should be associated
with the claims folder.
2. The RO should secure the complete VA outpatient treatment
records for the veteran's psychiatric disorder from July 1991 to the
present. The RO should secure copies of all hospitalization records
pertaining to the veteran's period of hospitalization from September
1973 to the present. The records obtained should be made part of
the claims folder.
3. If indicated, the veteran should be afforded a special VA
psychiatric examination, in order to determine the current
manifestations of his PTSD. The examination should be conducted
in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations, and should include all appropriate testing and
evaluations and the findings should be reported. The examiner
should specifically consider the veteran's psychological, social and
occupational functioning on a hypothetical continuum of mental
health--illness, as provided by the Global Assessment of Functioning
Scale (GAF Scale), American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, 3d ed., Revised, 1987, and provide a numerical
score which most appropriately reflects the current severity of the
veteran's psychiatric disability. The examiner should also express an
opinion as to whether the veteran has primary alcohol or whether
there exists an etiological relationship between alcoholism abuse and
the veteran's service-connected PTSD. The claims folder must be
made available for review by the psychiatrist prior to the
examination.
4. Thereafter, the RO should reevaluate the veteran's claim for an
increased evaluation for his PTSD. The RO should also address the
issue of entitlement to service connection for alcoholism as
secondary to service-connected PTSD.
If the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and his
representative shoul
appropriate supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to
respond. T
then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. No
action by
required until he is contacted by the RO. This panel intimates no
opinion, eith
to the disposition warranted in this case pending completion of the
requested de
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
*
WILLIAM J. REDDY
PHILIP E. WRIGHT
*38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of Veterans'
Appeals Se
direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the
transaction of busin
awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the
Section is c
fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the
Board or ina
Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman
has directed
proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of
decisions, w
assignment of a third Member.
(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of
Veterans'
appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This
remand is in th
preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on
the merits
C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1992).